nearObjects – Talk
(Better to talk of distance rather than radius?) |
Lou Montana (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "ArmA 2" to "Arma 2") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
In | In Arma 2 buildings that are hidden by LOD are not visible using this command. There is also an interesting fact: | ||
if you use this command to detect buildings in the nearest location of type NameCity or NameCityCapital, it'll work properly. For NameVillage, however, the returned array is empty. --18:04, 27 September 2009 (CEST) tsuki. | if you use this command to detect buildings in the nearest location of type NameCity or NameCityCapital, it'll work properly. For NameVillage, however, the returned array is empty. --18:04, 27 September 2009 (CEST) tsuki. | ||
:Check the Z coordinate of the location. In Arma some ''NameVillage'' Locations are positioned below sea level (IIRC Bonanza is at [<x>,<y>,-200]), so searching for stuff near them (e.g. 100m) won't yield any results. --[[User:Worldeater|Worldeater]] 05:29, 30 September 2009 (CEST) | :Check the Z coordinate of the location. In Arma some ''NameVillage'' Locations are positioned below sea level (IIRC Bonanza is at [<x>,<y>,-200]), so searching for stuff near them (e.g. 100m) won't yield any results. --[[User:Worldeater|Worldeater]] 05:29, 30 September 2009 (CEST) | ||
--- | ---- | ||
It would be better to talk of distance rather than radius for the parameter.<br> | It would be better to talk of distance rather than radius for the parameter.<br> | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Same for [[nearestObjects]] and [[nearObjects]]. --[[User:Kju|Kju]] 14:59, 21 June 2010 (CEST) | Same for [[nearestObjects]] and [[nearObjects]]. --[[User:Kju|Kju]] 14:59, 21 June 2010 (CEST) | ||
::Radii are defined for spheres just like for circles, so I don't see why this should imply a distance on a plane. Anyways, I think radius is just fine, as it implies a spherical shape with position as center, and everything inside that shape is returned. Distance is a good fit too, though. Both have their pros and cons. --[[User:TeRp|TeRp]] 17:13, 21 June 2010 (CEST) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:27, 29 December 2020
The returned object is not necessarily the closest one.
But an array of objects is returned, so this doesnt make sense. --T_D 09:46, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
- Yeah, sorry. I'll rephrase that.
- I meant to say that the first element in the array is not necessarily the closest one (like it is in the other "near*" commands). --Kronzky 16:31, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
Note recently added:
{_x setdamage 1} foreach (player nearObjects 50);
This neglects to mention that the player will also be killed, as will any other units within the range.
Planck 20:12, 26 August 2007 (CEST)
This can find #particlesource where as nearestObjects can't (?). --Doolittle 03:58, 28 August 2009 (CEST)
In Arma 2 buildings that are hidden by LOD are not visible using this command. There is also an interesting fact: if you use this command to detect buildings in the nearest location of type NameCity or NameCityCapital, it'll work properly. For NameVillage, however, the returned array is empty. --18:04, 27 September 2009 (CEST) tsuki.
- Check the Z coordinate of the location. In Arma some NameVillage Locations are positioned below sea level (IIRC Bonanza is at [<x>,<y>,-200]), so searching for stuff near them (e.g. 100m) won't yield any results. --Worldeater 05:29, 30 September 2009 (CEST)
It would be better to talk of distance rather than radius for the parameter.
Radius might imply a 2d plain, while distance is more accurate. Thoughts?
Same for nearestObjects and nearObjects. --Kju 14:59, 21 June 2010 (CEST)
- Radii are defined for spheres just like for circles, so I don't see why this should imply a distance on a plane. Anyways, I think radius is just fine, as it implies a spherical shape with position as center, and everything inside that shape is returned. Distance is a good fit too, though. Both have their pros and cons. --TeRp 17:13, 21 June 2010 (CEST)